Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Posted By Thunderkiss on 05/13/2007 8:04 AM
Seems pretty cut and dried to me, the only time it gets confusing is when semantics are applied to attempt to gain an undue and clearly illegal advantage.

Not always, sometimes the rules are written in a way that it can be read in a number of different ways as we all see things from our own perspectives. 

I'm a Marine and Tau player. Marines can't fleet fullstop and Tau Vespids can fleet but can't deepstrike, therefore argueing this rule gives me no advantage in the games I play, so my opinion is not bias in any way.

Although I believe myself correct I can see the opposite interpritations. From one point we've got the arguement that the rules state each phase of a turn seperatly indicating that they apply to there respective phases. I.E. you can shoot counted as moved, fleet replaces shoot, therefore you can fleet. (this is the one I believe to be the correct interpritation)

Then you've got the arguement that the rules state you cannot MOVE, fleet is a form of move and therefore cannot fleet. (I believe this to be incorrect, however if you read it in that context then it does make perfect sense so its a valid argument which is why I'm NOT saying that my opinion is the correct one, I merly believe it is as RAW is not helping either side)

It obvious to me that these rules were not written atthe time with Fleet in mind and lets be honest GW staff are human as us and can't think of every angle and can't describe everything in a short crystal clear sentence all the time.

Posted By coredump on 05/13/2007 10:19 AM
Well, since *you* deem it clear, than surely anyone that dares to disagree *must* be doing it for an illegal advantage. We should have just called you in the first place.

So, if it was so clear and cut and dried...why did they state no assaults? If there is no movement of any kind, and it is clear and obvious, then there are no assaults either.

IMO, they probably added the Assault bit because there are individuals out there who claim that assaulting isn't moving, because it doesn't happen in the movement phase. Those individuals are wrong, of course. Bottom line (to me) here is that the Deep Strike rule says no movement for the turn. That means the entire turn, all phases, to include shooting, so no moving instead of shooting. My 2 cents.